6.  In 1990 the applicant passed her tax consultant's examination. She then concluded a contract for a professional partnership with another tax consultant. However, when that consultant later breached his contractual obligations, the applicant terminated the contract in 1993. Subsequently, she requested the public prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against her former partner and requested a court order (Mahnbescheid).
7.  On 12 September 1994, following her former partner's opposition to the court order, she introduced a claim with the Hanover Regional Court against her former partner for payment of a settlement (Abfindung) in the amount of 310,179.51 euros (EUR). On 9 January 1995 the applicant paid the court fees.
8.  On 2 June 1995 a first hearing took place. The parties agreed to await the outcome of a further set of proceedings on the disclosure of information. These proceedings were finally decided upon on 17 July 1996 by the Celle Court of Appeal.
9.  On 26 August 1996 the Hanover Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 14 February 1997. In particular on the defendant's request, it later had to be postponed three times. On 12 September 1997 the second hearing took place before the Hanover Regional Court.
10.  On 21 November 1997 the court decided that an expert opinion on the value of the professional partnership as of 31 December 1993 and further values relevant for the final dissolution of the partnership should be obtained. It also requested an advance which the applicant paid in January 1998. On 10 February 1998 the court informed the parties that it intended to commission an expert opinion from a Dr. K. as soon as documents seized by the public prosecutor had been submitted.
11.  On 11 August 1998 the files (in September 1998 also the public prosecutor's files) had been transferred to the expert. In November 1998 the expert re-transferred the files to the public prosecutor and informed the parties that (in order to save costs) he would await the final report of the public prosecutor which would contain information as to the business value of the applicant's former partner. Subsequently, he repeatedly enquired the state of the report. On 26 June 2000 the public prosecutor's files again were transferred to the expert. The final report of the public prosecutor was submitted on 14 August 2000. On 20 November 2000 Dr. K. submitted his expert report.
12.  On 12 February 2001, on the applicant's request, the court summoned the expert to the hearing scheduled for 4 May 2001. On the expert's request (the court had not transmitted the parties' submissions to the expert), and once also on account of the absence of the defendant's legal counsel, it later had to be postponed three times.
13.  On 23 May 2001 the applicant's former partner introduced a counterclaim (Widerklage) in particular on the disclosure of further information as regards clients. At the hearing in August 2001 he extended this claim and sought compensation; partly the issue was settled. In September 2001 the case had been assigned to a new rapporteur.
14.  In October 2001 the court scheduled a new hearing for 19 April 2002. That day the parties failed to reach a friendly settlement. By a decision of 29 April 2002 the Hanover Regional Court requested the expert to supplement his report as regards explanations given in August 2001. On 8 June 2002 Dr. K. submitted this report.
15.  In October 2002 the court scheduled a new hearing for March 2003. On 21 March 2003 the applicant's former partner again amended his counterclaim.
16.  On 28 March 2003 the further hearing took place. On 16 May 2003 the Hanover Regional Court issued an informative decision (Hinweisbeschluss).
17.  On 5 September 2003, following another hearing in July, it rendered a partial judgment and decided that the applicant's former partner was to pay the applicant about EUR 400,000.
18.  On 26 March 2004 the Celle Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the Hanover Regional Court. It found in particular that the claim and the counterclaim had to be decided upon together.
19.  On 1 July 2004, after having received the files, the Hanover Regional Court commissioned a further supplementary expert opinion from Dr. K. On 23 September 2004 the court amended this decision. On 15 June 2005, following a number of additional questions addressed to the parties, the expert submitted this supplementary report.
20.  On 16 November 2005, following further submissions by the parties, the Hanover Regional Court requested another supplementary report. On 1 November 2006, following a number of requests for additional documents, Dr. K. submitted this (third supplementary) report.
21.  On 12 February 2007 the Hanover Regional Court issued another informative decision and gave the parties the opportunity for further comments. On 15 June 2007 another hearing took place; the expert had also been summoned.
22.  On 13 July 2007 the Hanover Regional Court issued a further partial judgment. This time it decided exclusively on the counterclaim.
23.  On 16 August 2007 the applicant appealed. On 20 February 2008 the Celle Court of Appeal again quashed the partial judgment.
24.  On 4 July 2008 another hearing took place before the Hanover Regional Court. On 18 July 2008 the Regional Court decided to obtain a further supplementary opinion by Dr. K.
25.  On 11 November 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on account of the length of the proceedings. On 17 November 2008 she also lodged a claim for public liability against the State of Niedersachsen aimed at establishing that the Land of Niedersachsen was to pay her any damage
26.  In January 2009 the expert submitted his (fourth supplementary) report. On 7 April 2009 the Hanover Regional Court requested the expert to give a supplementary statement. Another hearing was scheduled for 29 September 2009.
27.  On 2 September 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the proceedings in the applicant's case had exceeded the reasonable time requirement and decided that the State of Niedersachsen had to bear the necessary costs of the complaint.